Re: Pearls Before Swine: Rat The Luddite

On 8/20/2024 4:45 PM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:

On 8/20/24 09:23, Cryptoengineer wrote:

On 8/20/2024 4:34 AM, D wrote:

>
>
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024, Joy Beeson wrote:
>

On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 13:06:58 -0400, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>

If its a plastic fiber, you've done little or nothing to reduce
plastic waste. How many single-use bags are required to equal the
weight of your reusable?

>
Despite being washed in hot water with bleach, my reusable bags were
well over thirty years old when I set them next to a leaking battery
and they all got large holes in the bottom.
>

>
Note that it is not the age, but how many times you reuse them. I think common knowledge is that you must use one of those reusables about 10 000 times in order for it to come out favourably against single use plastic bags.
>
Needless to say, many hip and woke teenagers, probably throw them away after a month or two when they become dirty or when a new shiny one is received at the next convention.

>
>
https://sites.psu.edu/marabelleolivia/2021/02/25/are-reusable-bags- worth-it/
>
This site, which is mainly concerned with greenhouse gases, points
out that all the reusables use more resources per bag than the
single use ones, but works out the break-even points:
>
Paper: 4 uses
Polypropylene: 14
Cotton: 173
>
So, it looks like the plastic reusables are a lot better than I
thought.
>
pt
>

      But they do not beat the natural fibre bags at all.

Huh?
The numbers say that you'll produce less pollution using a
cotton bag than single use plastic ones only if you use the
cotton one 173 times.
Now, that *is* in line with reality - people can use them that
many times. But I was very surprised to see that the polypropylene
bags needed only 14 uses to do so.
I fully expected to see cotton producing less pollution than the
polypropylene, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
pt